2016 UT App 106

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

DAVID OLSEN, ROSEMARY OLSEN, AND RICK MARGOLIS,

Appellants,

v.

PARK CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND 

VALLEY OF LOVE LLC,

Appellees.

Memorandum Decision

No. 20141193-CA

Filed May 19, 2016

Third District Court, Silver Summit Department

The Honorable Todd M. Shaughnessy

No. 110500786

Bruce R. Baird, Attorney for Appellants

Mark Harrington and Polly Samuels McLean, 

Attorneys for Appellee Park City 

Municipal Corporation

Eric P. Lee and Justin J. Keys, Attorneys for Appellee 

Valley of Love LLC

SENIOR JUDGE RUSSELL W. BENCH authored this Memorandum 

Decision, in which JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME and STEPHEN L.

ROTH concurred.1

BENCH, Senior Judge:

¶1 David Olsen, Rosemary Olsen, and Rick Margolis 

(collectively, Appellants) challenge the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment in favor of Park City Municipal Corporation 

 

1. Senior Judge Russell W. Bench sat by special assignment as 

authorized by law. See generally Utah R. Jud. Admin. 11-201(6).
Olsen v. Park City Municipal Corporation

20141193-CA 2 2016 UT App 106

(Park City) and Valley of Love LLC (collectively, Appellees). We 

affirm.

¶2 Valley of Love owns three adjacent parcels of real 

property on Empire Avenue in Park City, Utah. The two smaller 

parcels, consisting of 2,221 and 1,676 square feet, border Empire 

Avenue. The large parcel, consisting of 8,985 square feet, is 

landlocked behind the two small parcels. The parcels are located 

in a recreation commercial zone, which allows developments to 

have a maximum density ratio of 1.0.2 See Park City, Utah, Land 

Mgmt. Code § 15-2.16-3(B), http://www.parkcity.org/home/

showdocument?id=220 [https://perma.cc/55MV-2R65]. However, 

setback requirements made the two smaller parcels unbuildable 

on their own.

¶3 In 2009, Valley of Love sought approval of a proposed 

ordinance to combine the three parcels, which had not yet been 

subdivided3 for development, into a single platted lot of record. 

 

2. A building has a density ratio of 1.0 if the total square footage 

of the building is equal to the total square footage of the lot.

3. Although the word “subdivision” most commonly refers to a 

division rather than an aggregation of lots, see Subdivision, 

Merriam-Webster.com, http://www.merriam-webster.com/

dictionary/subdivision [https://perma.cc/B9CH-H3RP], the Park 

City Land Management Code defines a subdivision as “[a]ny 

land, vacant or improved, which is divided or proposed to be 

divided or combined into one (1) or more Lots, Parcels, Site, Units, 

plots, or interests for the purpose of offer, sale, lease or 

Development,” Park City, Utah, Land Mgmt. Code § 15-15-1.266, 

http://www.parkcity.org/home/showdocument?id=198 [https://

perma.cc/D8ZJ-GG7Q] (emphasis added). Thus, for purposes of 

our discussion, we use the word “subdivision” and its variants 

to refer to the combination of the three parcels in this case into a 

single lot.
Olsen v. Park City Municipal Corporation

20141193-CA 3 2016 UT App 106

Park City approved Valley of Love’s proposal and enacted 

Ordinance 10-08, subdividing the three parcels into a single lot.4

Valley of Love then sought and obtained approval of a 

conditional use permit allowing it to build a multi-unit dwelling 

on the lot.5

¶4 Appellants, who own property near the parcels,

challenged Ordinance 10-08 in district court, asserting that Park 

City violated various provisions of the Park City Land 

Management Code (LMC) by adopting the ordinance. The 

 

4. Appellants represent Ordinance 10-08 as a lot-line adjustment, 

but because the parcels had never been subdivided into lots 

prior to the enactment of Ordinance 10-08, Park City’s action is 

more properly termed a subdivision. Compare Park City, Utah, 

Land Mgmt. Code § 15-7.1-3(D), http://www.parkcity.org/

home/showdocument?id=208 [https://perma.cc/YT7C-E8MX] 

(indicating that a lot-line adjustment involves “[t]he relocation of 

the Property boundary line between two adjoining Lots”), with 

id. § 15-15-1.266, http://www.parkcity.org/home/showdocument?

id=198 [https://perma.cc/D8ZJ-GG7Q] (defining a subdivision as 

“[a]ny land, vacant or improved, which is divided or proposed 

to be divided or combined into one (1) or more Lots, Parcels, Site, 

Units, plots, or interests for the purpose of offer, sale, lease or 

Development” (emphasis added)). See generally id. § 15-15-1.154 

(defining a lot as “[a] unit of land described in a recorded 

Subdivision Plat”).

5. Appellants challenged Park City’s approval of Valley of 

Love’s conditional use permit in a separate case. The district 

court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees in that 

case as well, but Appellants did not appeal. Therefore, to the 

extent that Appellants’ arguments appear to challenge Park 

City’s approval of the conditional use permit, we do not address 

them.
Olsen v. Park City Municipal Corporation

20141193-CA 4 2016 UT App 106

parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district 

court determined that Ordinance 10-08 did not violate the LMC 

and granted Appellees’ motion for summary judgment.

¶5 Appellants assert that the district court erred in 

concluding that Park City’s adoption of Ordinance 10-08 did not 

conflict with the LMC, and they therefore request that we 

reverse the district court’s summary judgment ruling. We review 

the district court’s ruling on summary judgment for correctness. 

See Springville Citizens for a Better Cmty. v. City of Springville, 1999 

UT 25, ¶ 22, 979 P.2d 332.

¶6 “A municipality’s land use decisions are entitled to a 

great deal of deference.” Id. Thus, we reverse such decisions only 

if they are “arbitrary, capricious, or illegal.” Id. ¶ 23. Appellants 

argue that Ordinance 10-08 violates LMC sections 15-7-5 and 15-

7-2 and the Park City Planning Department’s “General Plan” and 

that it is therefore illegal.6

¶7 Appellants first argue that Ordinance 10-08 violates 

section 15-7-5(B)(1), which provides that the LMC’s regulations 

regarding subdivisions

are not intended to interfere with, abrogate, or 

annul any other ordinance, rule or regulation, 

statute, or other provision of law. Where any 

provision of these regulations imposes restriction 

different from those imposed by any other 

provision of these regulations or any other 

ordinance, rule or regulation, or other provision of 

 

6. Appellees argue that ordinances cannot be rendered illegal 

based on conflicts with general purpose statements such as those 

contained in section 15-7-2 and the General Plan. For purposes of 

our analysis, we assume, without deciding, that they can.
Olsen v. Park City Municipal Corporation

20141193-CA 5 2016 UT App 106

law, whichever provisions are more restrictive or 

impose higher standards shall control.

Park City, Utah, Land Mgmt. Code § 15-7-5(B)(1), http://www.

parkcity.org/home/showdocument?id=207 [https://perma.cc/

XQ5D-E9XM]. Appellants argue that Ordinance 10-08 annulled 

the effects of the building ratio and setback requirements 

applicable in the recreation commercial zone (the lot 

requirements), see id. § 15-2.16-3, http://www.parkcity.org/home/

showdocument?id=220 [https://perma.cc/55MV-2R65], because it 

subdivided the parcels into a single lot and thereby increased 

their total buildable square footage, which the setback 

requirements previously limited.

¶8 Appellants argue that because setback requirements 

would have made the front two parcels unbuildable had they 

been subdivided into individual lots, the lot requirements had 

the effect of forever limiting the total buildable square footage on 

the three parcels to the amount allowed on the large parcel—

8,985 square feet. They assert that the total could not be altered 

even if the parcels were ultimately subdivided into a single lot. 

Thus, because Ordinance 10-08 effectively increased the 

buildable square footage of the parcels to 12,882 square feet—an 

amount equal to the total square footage of the parcels—

Appellants argue that it conflicted with the lot requirements as 

applicable prior to the subdivision and thereby violated section 

15-7-5(B)(1).

¶9 Appellants refer us to no authority suggesting that the 

buildable square footage of property must forever be defined by 

what would have been allowed on an individual parcel of 

property if it were subdivided as an individual lot. The setback 

requirements only indirectly affect the buildable square footage

on a lot due to the impossibility of building a structure on a 

narrow lot while complying with the setback requirements; 

those requirements do not actually alter the density allowance 
Olsen v. Park City Municipal Corporation

20141193-CA 6 2016 UT App 106

for the lot. Furthermore, the lot requirements apply to lots, id.

§ 15-2.16-3, and the three parcels were not lots as defined by the 

LMC until they were subdivided, id. § 15-15-1.154, http://www.

parkcity.org/home/showdocument?id=198 [https://perma.cc/

D8ZJ-GG7Q] (defining a lot as “[a] unit of land described in a 

recorded Subdivision Plat”). Indeed, no structure of any kind 

could have been built on the parcels until they were subdivided.

Id. § 15-1-9, http://www.parkcity.org/home/showdocument?

id=7419 [https://perma.cc/84MZ-FYBS] (instructing the Planning 

Department, in reviewing an application for a building permit, 

to “determine whether the proposal . . . respects Lot Lines of a 

legally subdivided Lot”). Thus, the lot requirements did not 

come into operation with respect to the parcels until after they 

were subdivided into a lot, and there is no possibility that 

Ordinance 10-08 could have “interfere[d] with, abrogate[d], or 

annul[led]” the lot requirements for the recreation commercial 

zone. See id. § 15-7-5(B)(1), http://www.parkcity.org/home/

showdocument?id=207 [https://perma.cc/XQ5D-E9XM].

¶10 Appellants next assert that Ordinance 10-08 violates two 

of the stated purposes of the subdivision provisions of the LMC, 

namely, “to prevent overcrowding of the land and undue 

congestion of population” and “[t]o provide the most beneficial 

relationship between the Uses of land and Buildings and the 

circulation of traffic, throughout the municipality, having 

particular regard to the avoidance of congestion in the Streets 

and highways.” Id. § 15-7-2(C), (G). Appellants argue that the 

increase in the potential buildable square footage of the three 

parcels created by Ordinance 10-08 violated the purposes of the 

LMC to prevent overcrowding and allow circulation of traffic.

¶11 We agree with the district court that Ordinance 10-08 is 

consistent with the purposes of the LMC. The fact that the 

setback requirements might have resulted in an overall lower 

density if the parcels had been subdivided differently does not 

change the fact that the LMC allows for a 1.0 density ratio. Thus, 
Olsen v. Park City Municipal Corporation

20141193-CA 7 2016 UT App 106

in enacting the LMC, Park City had previously determined that 

1.0 was an appropriate density for the area. Further, the fact that 

zoning regulations permitted a structure of up to 12,882 square 

feet to be built on the lot does not mean that such a building 

would necessarily be built or that it would result in 

overcrowding or traffic congestion. Had Valley of Love 

employed one of the smaller allowed uses on the lot, such as a 

single family home or a duplex, the overcrowding and 

congestion Appellants are concerned with could not have 

materialized. See id. § 15-2.16-2(A), http://www.parkcity.org/

home/showdocument?id=220 [https://perma.cc/55MV-2R65]. In 

order to build the type of multi-unit dwelling that Valley of 

Love ultimately sought to build, it had to obtain a conditional 

use permit. Id. § 15-1-10, http://www.parkcity.org/home/

showdocument?id=7419 [https://perma.cc/84MZ-FYBS]; id. § 15-

2.16-2(B). If Valley of Love’s multi-unit dwelling, once proposed, 

posed a potential overcrowding or traffic problem, then that 

could be addressed—and indeed, was addressed—in the process 

of approving the conditional use permit. Because Appellants 

have not appealed the district court’s summary judgment ruling 

regarding the conditional use permit, we do not address this

argument further. See supra note 5.

¶12 Finally, Appellants argue that Ordinance 10-08 conflicts 

with the “General Plan”—Park City’s “long range policy plan” 

intended to “guide future [LMC] and zoning decisions.” See [1 

Goals, Objectives, Strategies] Park City, Utah, General Plan 8 

(2014), http://www.parkcity.org/home/showdocument?id=12385 

[https://perma.cc/HB3N-RZT8]. Specifically, the General Plan in 

place at the time Ordinance 10-08 was approved provided,

The area at the base of the Park City Mountain 

Resort is currently zoned Recreation Commercial. 

While development associated with the ski area 

itself is (and will be) very dense, the [Recreation 

Commercial] area to the east has served as a 
Olsen v. Park City Municipal Corporation

20141193-CA 8 2016 UT App 106

transition zone to lower densities. The entire area is 

currently zoned Recreation Commercial. To better 

address future development in the area, the 

following objectives are recommended:

Examine and make modifications to the 

Recreation Commercial zone to ensure that new 

structures to the east of Empire Avenue provide 

skier bed base, while allowing for a transition of 

scale to Park Avenue. Eliminate [the] option for 

commercial uses and emphasize that commercial 

uses occur at the ski resort base only.

Specify density requirements for the 

[recreation commercial] zone that more closely 

match what can actually be built on the parcels.

Refine design guidelines for the area to 

provide the necessary transition between the 

historic area and the resort area.

Appellants assert that because the subdivided lot is on the east 

side of Empire Avenue, Ordinance 10-08 violated the General 

Plan by granting Valley of Love “the right to develop the 

property literally to the maximum scale allowed in the 

[recreation commercial] zone.” (Emphasis omitted.) Based on the 

General Plan, they argue, structures built on property to the east 

of Empire Avenue must be smaller than those allowed to the 

west of Empire Avenue in order to accomplish “the transitioning 

in scale to Park Avenue.” (Emphasis omitted.)

¶13 Accepting, for purposes of our analysis, that Appellants’ 

interpretation of the General Plan is correct and that an 

ordinance violating the General Plan would be illegal, we are not 

convinced that Ordinance 10-08 violates the General Plan. First, 

Ordinance 10-08 does not say anything about the buildable 

square footage of the lot; it merely creates the lot and concludes 

that it is “compatible with the zone and other developments in 

the area.” It is the LMC’s lot requirements that ultimately define 
Olsen v. Park City Municipal Corporation

20141193-CA 9 2016 UT App 106

the buildable square footage of the lot, based on density 

allowances for the zone. Second, to the extent that Appellants 

argue that permitting Valley of Love to build its proposed multiunit dwelling on the lot violated the General Plan, that argument 

is not before us, as it concerns the grant of the conditional use 

permit, an issue that was not appealed.

¶14 Because we determine that Park City did not violate any 

provision of the LMC or the General Plan in enacting Ordinance 

10-08, we conclude that the ordinance is not illegal. Accordingly, 

we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in 

favor of Appellees.